Written evidence submitted by People’s Dispensary for Sick Animals (PDSA) (DDL0389)

Introduction

Founded in 1917 by animal welfare pioneer, Maria Dickin CBE, PDSA is the UK’s leading veterinary charity. Through a UK-wide network including 48 Pet Hospitals, every year PDSA provides free and reduced cost veterinary care to 470,000 pets of people in need, as well as promoting responsible pet ownership. Through our mission to treat illness, prevent diseases and educate owners, we work tirelessly towards our vision of a lifetime of wellbeing for every pet.

Following the introduction of the Animal Welfare Acts 2006 (2011 in Northern Ireland) PDSA (in collaboration with leading research agency YouGov) launched the annual PDSA Animal Wellbeing (PAW) Report in 2011 to meet the need for an overarching means of assessing, monitoring and therefore improving the wellbeing of the UK’s pet dogs, cats and rabbits. The Report uses nationally representative samples for the entire UK pet-owning population for these three species, and also surveys the views of veterinary professionals. Now in its eighth year, the PAW Report is widely respected and utilised throughout the animal welfare and veterinary sectors. Throughout this response we have used the most recent data from these reports. Where we have included data from older PAW Reports, e.g. from 2012 or 2014, this is the most recent data on those topics.

In 2016 our PAW Report3 found that 78% of owners and 84% of veterinary professionals agreed that the government should review dangerous dog legislation. We thank EFRA for this opportunity to submit evidence for this important inquiry into the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 (DDA) and will be responding in line with our areas of expertise. We feel that this is a significantly positive step forward building on other recent advances such as mandatory microchipping of dogs, changes to the Animal Welfare (Licensing of Activities Involving Animals) Regulations and the call for evidence on a proposed ban to third party sales.

We are more than happy to supply further information if any is required.

Executive summary

• The current Dangerous Dogs Act (DDA) is not effective and may be doing more harm than good to dog welfare and the safety of the general public.

• The major flaw is that DDA considers breed to be the defining factor in dog bite incidents but substantial research shows that breed is not a key factor.

• Many animal welfare organisations, including the British Veterinary Association (BVA) and Federation of Veterinarians in Europe (FVE) and PDSA, support the view that it is ‘Deed not Breed’ that is important as any dog can become aggressive.

• With this in mind, legislation and interventions must be directed at education of owners and the general public in how to behave around dogs, which is essential to prevent dog bites from occurring.

• Evidence-based advice from appropriately qualified dog behaviourists (i.e. those belonging to ABTC, APBC or CCAB) must be sought when updating the DDA legislation and putting in place adequate interventions.

• Issues that can result in a dog becoming aggressive must be considered to implement appropriate legislation and interventions. These issues include:
• Irresponsible breeding with lack of socialisation or negative experiences when young.
• Irresponsible purchasing resulting in owners choosing pets that are not appropriate for their lifestyles and consequently are not able to provide for their pet’s 5 Welfare Needs.
• Owners not adequately socialising or training their dogs.
• Incorrect advice from inadequately qualified animal trainers and behaviourists.

• Mechanisms such as Dog Control Notices should be used to help owners with dogs showing aggression to understand and prevent their aggression leading to bites and attacks.

• DDA legislation should be changed to prevent dog welfare issues resulting from prolonged kennelling and unnecessary separation from owners.

• Breed specific legislation (BSL) has been shown to be ineffective in several other countries, leading to repeal of this legislation in the Netherlands, Italy and Lower Saxony, Germany.

• Further research would be beneficial to help understand the epidemiology of dog bites in the UK and which educational interventions are most effective in preventing them.

Question 1: How effective is the Government’s current approach to protecting the public from dangerous dog attacks?

1. Despite best intentions, we do not feel that the current approach is effective at protecting the public from dangerous dog attacks. Rather than there being a reduction in dog bites following introduction of DDA research shows that hospital admissions from dogs bites have continued and actually increased. Klaassen et al (1996) showed that the rate of attendances at an Accident and Emergency department had not changed two years after the Act came into force1. Provisional data from the Health & Social Care Information Centre in 2015 showed that the number of hospital admissions due to dog bites increased from 4,100 to 7,227 (76% increase) between March 2005 and February 20152. Sadly, some bites from dogs result in human death with resulting widespread media coverage4, 5.

2. The original legislation may have been aimed at a minority of individuals who choose to own certain type of dog as a status symbol and potentially train it to be aggressive. Even taking this into account, legislating to ban specific breeds may not be helpful as the popular status breeds for this group of individuals will change over time. We support the position of the British Veterinary Association6 (BVA) and Federation of Veterinarians of Europe7 (FVE) and many other animal welfare organisations, that it is ‘Deed not Breed’ and any dog has the potential to be aggressive. Without taking into consideration all of the reasons for dog aggression and putting into place preventive interventions, dog bite incidents will continue.

3. The PAW Report 20163 showed that 51% of UK pet owners said that they knew someone who had been attacked or bitten by a dog3. In this report owners also stated which behaviours their dogs showed that they would like to change: 3% said aggression towards other people (equating to approximately 280,000 UK dogs) 7% said growling or snarling (approximately 660,000 UK dog), 3% said biting other dogs (approximately 280,000 UK dogs), and 9% said aggression towards other pets (approximately 850,000 UK dogs). This report also showed that 51% of vet professionals reported that they had seen an increase in pets who have been bitten by a dog over the last two years.

4. The views of professionals echo this. The PAW Report 20148 showed that 93% of veterinary professionals said that determining whether a dog is dangerous should be based on ‘Deed not Breed’. Findings from Battersea’s report on Dog Bites9 showed that 74% of professional canine behaviourists and trainers said that breed was either not important at all or only slightly important in determining dog aggression levels.

5. Scientific evidence also shows that breed is not influential in dog bite incidents. For example, the work by Klaassen et al (1996)1 mentioned above showed that dangerous breeds only contributed to a small proportion of dog bite cases received at Accident and Emergency. Many studies from other countries have also demonstrated that breed does not play a significant factor, and breed specific legislation (BSL) has been repealed in several countries as a result (see Question 4).

6. The current legislation has also led to dog welfare issues through the seizure of dogs from their owners (who may have been then been shown to not be a banned breed, or to have not been aggressive) and prolonged kennelling through the duration of the legal process. Reports by the RSPCA23 and Battersea9 contain more information on this topic.

Question 2: What changes, if any, should be made to the current approach and legislation?

7. Research has shown that there are many benefits of owning a dog and recent work on the economics of pet ownership10 has estimated that pet ownership in the UK may reduce use of the NHS to a value of £2.45 billion per year, whilst the cost of NHS treatment for bites and strikes from dogs is estimated at £3 million per year. Consequently, we do not feel that a reduction in dog ownership would be beneficial to pet owners, the Treasury, or the dogs themselves. However, given the increase in hospital admissions discussed above, clearly changes need to be made to ensure adequate protection of the general public.

8. As any dog has the potential to be aggressive, it is essential that a thorough understanding of the causes of aggression is taken into consideration when considering changes to regulations. For example, a puppy’s experiences during the first few months of life can shape how they behave as adults (referred to as the ‘socialisation period’). Inadequate socialisation when young can lead to fear and potentially aggression in later life. The knowledge and experience of suitably qualified canine behaviourists (i.e. those who are members of ABTC, APBC or CCAB) should be utilised when drafting changes to the DDA. 

9. We strongly believe that much more emphasis should be placed on education and prevention of dog behaviour issues through interventions directed at the general public, pet owners and breeders, including in the following areas:

• Building knowledge of dog behaviour - Much more focus is needed on increasing dog owners’ and the general public’s knowledge of dog behaviour, to ensure that they understand when a dog is likely to be aggressive. If they understand dog body language and factors leading to a bite better, they can take appropriate action to ensure that a dog bite is avoided.

• Responsible breeding of puppies – The licensing of all breeders including those with a one-off litter, and creating regulations to ensure that all breeders to provide all puppies with adequate socialisation and preparation for life in normal home. Regulation of online sales is also required to assist with this.

• Responsible purchasing of puppies – The PAW Report 201711 showed that 1.2 million dog owners (13%) did no research at all before taking on their dog. This means that dog owners aren’t necessarily choosing a pet that is suitable for their lifestyle, may purchase from a disreputable source where a puppy has not had an adequate start in life, and may not be able to provide for their pet’s 5 Welfare Needs (as required by the Animal Welfare Acts). Education of owners is required on how to choose an appropriate pet, how to purchase responsibly, and to give an understanding of the costs of ownership.

• Providing for a dog’s 5 Welfare Needs – Our findings from the PAW Report show that a significant number of owners are not providing adequately for their dogs’ 5 Welfare Needs and consequently behavioural issues, including aggression, may result. In 2017, the PAW Report showed that almost 1.8 million (19%) of dogs are left alone for five or more hours on a typical weekday and 1.2 million dogs (13%) have received no training at all. The report also showed that 66% of dog owners said they would like to change at least one behaviour shown by their dog (including 3% who said that their dog showed aggression towards people, equating to approximately 280,000 UK dogs). Education of owners is required to ensure that dogs remain happy and healthy and do not develop behavioural issues that can lead to aggression.

• Appropriate behavioural advice – Currently there is no regulation of animal behaviourists and trainers. Some may be providing inadequate or even dangerous advice which can lead to a dog becoming aggressive.  Consideration should be given to ways in which the standards for dog behaviourists and trainers can be guaranteed to ensure that owners who seek help receive appropriate, evidence-based advice (e.g. positive reinforcement techniques) that will help them to prevent their dogs from becoming dangerously aggressive.

10. Additional requirements should also be considered for dealing with those few individuals who actively intend for their dog to be aggressive including:

• The use of Dog Control Notices to ensure that the general public can be kept safe.
• Education of offending owners to include developing their understanding of dog behaviour, the causes of aggression and how to prevent it, and how to provide for their dog’s 5 Welfare Needs.

• Extension of current measures to make dog attacks on any animal or any other dog an offence, not just those attacks on humans and assistance dogs. In PAW 2016 we found that 51% of vet professionals reported seeing an increase in pets who have been bitten by a dog over the last two years3.

11. DDA legislation should also be amended to prevent unnecessary removal from owners and prolonged kennelling, especially as the latter has been shown to have an adverse effect on dog welfare24.

12. The PAW Report 201711 also found that 7% of dog owners had not microchipped their dog, despite this being a legal requirement, so further interventions are needed to reach this group of owners.

Question 3: How can local authorities and police forces be best supported in reducing the number of dangerous dog-related incidents?

13. Working with other stakeholders such as animal welfare charities to utilise existing resources and share expertise, increased funding, and following models of collaboration that have worked on a local level will all support local authorities and police forces.

14. Several initiatives exist already which may be useful in this area. At PDSA, we provide Canine Communication Workshops to educate children and adults on how to behave around dogs. In 2017 we reached 16,000 individuals through this scheme. This intervention could potentially be extended if funding was available to help prevent dog bites. It could also be used as part of a Dog Control Notice to educate owners who are already having issues with their pets in a similar way to how Speed Awareness Courses are used for speeding motorists.

15. We also provide several resources to help owners choose an appropriate pet including the Get PetWise quiz on our website and Which Pet consultation frameworks for veterinary staff. The Get Petwise quiz helps to match owners to the type of pet that is suitable for their lifestyle and can therefore provide for their pet’s needs. Which Pet consultations help veterinary staff discuss choosing a pet with prospective owners before they purchase again to help to ensure that owners make a responsible choice and can provide for the pet that they choose. We also provide informative content on our website which is accessible to all owners who are interested in getting a dog and choosing a suitable breed.

16. The Puppy Contract is a freely accessible online tool which any owner can use. It will guide them through the process of purchasing a puppy to help them purchase responsibly, choose an appropriate breeder, and get a puppy that is adequately prepared for life in a normal domestic environment, being happy and healthy. Encouraging owners to do this kind of research before taking on a dog will reduce dog aggression due to better education of owners and socialisation of dogs.

17. We are also part of the Merseyside Dog Safety Partnership which is a local initiative bringing together all relevant parties (including university researchers, the Police etc) to work collaboratively to reduce dog bites in the Merseyside area. Understanding the work of this group further would be essential when investigating what initiatives may be best on a national level. 

Question 4: What lessons could the UK learn from other countries dealing with similar issues?

18. There are many useful findings from other countries which can be valuable when considering what options are best suited to the UK. In many countries research has shown that BSL legislation has not been effective and that most bites are linked to the most popular breeds. Some countries have chosen to repeal their BSL.

19. In the Netherlands, BSL has been repealed. Research in the Netherlands showed that there was a mis-match between the breeds responsible for dog bites and those prohibited by the legislation that was in place at the time, and recommended that a preventive approach should focus on the handling of dogs12.

20. Italy have also repealed their BSL. Research in that country demonstrated the ineffectiveness of the legislation13.

21. In Lower Saxony, Germany, BSL has also been repealed. German research showed no difference in behaviour between different breeds and no justification for BSL14, 15.

22. Research in Ireland has shown that the most popular breeds were responsible for the most bites rather than breeds thought most likely to bite16, and that BSL did not lead to a reduction in hospital admissions for dog bites and authors concluded that it might be leading to an increase in hospitalisations17. Subsequent research in this country has also showed no differences between banned and non-banned breeds regarding the medical treatment required following a bite or the type of bite inflicted18.

23. In Spain, research has shown that implementation of BSL had little impact on the epidemiology of dog bites and that popular breeds were responsible for the majority of dog bite incidents19, 20. Researchers have also looked at the epidemiology of bites in more detail to form a basis for preventive measures21. A paper published last year also showed that BSL legislation in Spain appears to have not lead to a reduction in dog bite-related fatalities22.

Recommendations for action by Government or others

24. To improve the current legislation, reduce dog bite incidents, make dog-human interactions safer and improve dog welfare we recommend that:

• All organisations need to be aware that it is ‘Deed not breed’ that is important in determining the cause of aggressiveness in dogs and that any dog has the potential to be aggressive.

• Collaboration is needed between all organisations to put much more focus needed on increasing dog owners’ and the general public’s knowledge of dog behaviour as it is essential that dog owners and the general public are skilled in knowing how to behave around dogs. Interventions such as PDSA’s Canine Communication Workshops could help with this.

• Government regulation is required to ensuring that dogs are responsibly breed including the licensing of all breeders and requirements for adequate socialisation of puppies by breeders. Education of breeders is required to ensure that they understand the importance of these measures and how they can prevent aggression developing in the dogs they produce.

• Collaboration between all organisations is required to educate prospective owners. This includes how to choose the right pet for their lifestyle (such as by using PDSA’s Get Petwise online quiz), how to purchase responsibly (such as by using the Puppy Contract), how to provide for their pet’s 5 Welfare Needs (including how to socialise puppies and reward-based training techniques) and an understanding of the costs of dog ownership (as per advice on PDSA’s website). Regulation on the online sale of pets is required to assist with this.

• Further measures, such as Dog Control Notices, are needed to help owners whose dogs are showing aggressive behaviours, including interventions (such as Canine Communication Workshops) to improve owners’ knowledge of dog behaviour, how to keep their dog and humans safe, and how to prevent dog-bite incidents. Additional support and funding should be available to help local authorities provide this, along with enforcement of current regulations.

• Further research is required on e.g. the epidemiology of dog bites within the UK, and the effectiveness of various types of interventions including those aimed at educating owners.

June 2018

References

1. Klaassen B, Buckley JR, Esmail A (1996) Does the Dangerous Dogs Act protect against animal attacks: a prospective study of mammalian bites in the Accident and Emergency department. Injury, Vol 27, pp 89-91.
2. Health & Social Care Information Centre: Provisional monthly topic of interest: admissions caused by dogs and other mammals (2015) https://files.digital.nhs.uk/pdf/h/6/animal_bites_m12_1415.pdf. Accessed 5 June 2018.
3. The PDSA Animal Wellbeing (PAW) Report 2016: www.pdsa.org.uk/pawreport Access 5 June 2018.
4. BBC website: “Harry Harper dog maul death: Baby died from head injury” (Nov 2012) http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-shropshire-20464419. Accessed 5 June 2018.
5. BBC website: “Inquest hears of 'failure of care' over dog bite death” (Dec 2017) http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tyne-42417478. Accessed 5 June 2018.
6. BVA’s position on Dangerous dogs - https://www.bva.co.uk/News-campaigns-and-policy/Policy/Companion-animals/Dangerous-dogs/. Accessed 5 June 2018.
7. Federation of Veterinarians of Europe’s position paper on Dangerous Dogs - http://www.fve.org/news/position_papers/animal_welfare/fve_00_039_dangerous_dogs.pdf. Accessed 30 May 2018.
8. The PDSA Animal Wellbeing (PAW) Report 2014: www.pdsa.org.uk/pawreport. Accessed 5 June 2018.
9. Battersea report: “Dog Bites: What’s breed got to do with it?” http://www.bdch.org.uk/files/Dog-bites-whats-breed-got-to-do-with-it.pdf. Accessed 5 June 2018.
10. Hall S, Dolling L, Bristow K, Fuller T and Mills DS. Companion Animal Economics: The Economic Impact of Companion Animals in the UK. Published by CABI (2017).
11. The PDSA Animal Wellbeing (PAW) Report 2017: www.pdsa.org.uk/pawreport. Accessed 5 June 2018.
12. Cornelissen JMR and Hopster H (2010) Dog bites in The Netherlands: A study of victims, injuries, circumstances and aggressors to support evaluation of breed specific legislation. The Veterinary Journal, vol 186, pp 292-298.
13. Mariti C, Ciceroni C and Sighieri C (2015) Italian breed-specific legislation on potentially dangerous dogs (2003): assessment of its effect in the city of Florence (Italy). Dog Behaviour, vol 2, pp 25-31.
14. Schalke E, Ott SA, van Gaertner AM, Hackbarth H, Mittmann A (2008) Research: Is breed-specific legislation justified? Study of the results of the temperament test of Lower Saxony. J of Vet Behav, vol 3, pp 97-103.
15. Ott SA, Schalke E, von Gaertner AM, Hackbarth H (2008) Is there a difference? Comparison of golden retrievers and dogs affected by breed-specific legislation regarding aggressive behaviour. J of Vet Behav, vol 3, pp 134-140.
16. O’Sullivan EN, Jones BR, O’Sullivan K, Hanlon AJ (2008) Characteristics of 234 dog bite incidents in Ireland during 2004 and 2005. Vet Rec. Vol 163(2), pp 37-42.
17. Ó Súilleabháin P (2015) Human hospitalisations due to dog bites in Ireland (1998–2013): Implications for current breed specific legislation. The Veterinary Journal, vol 204, pp 357-359.
18. Creedon N, Ó Súilleabháin P (2017) Dog bite injuries to humans and the use of breed-specific legislation: a comparison of bites from legislated and non-legislated dog breeds. Irish Veterinary Journal 70:23.
19. Rosado B, Garcı´a-Belenguer S, Leo´n M and Palacio J (2007) Spanish dangerous animals act: Effect on the epidemiology of dog bites. Journal of Veterinary Behavior Vol 2, pp 166-174.
20. Martinez AG, Pernas GS, Caslta JD, Rey LS, De la Cruz Palomino LF (2011) Risk factors associated with behavioral problems in dogs. J of Vet Behav, vol 6, pp 225-231.
21. Rosado B, Garcı´a-Belenguer S, Leo´n M and Palacio J (2009) A comprehensive study of dog bites in Spain, 1995 – 2004. The Veterinary Journal, vol 179, pp 383-391.
22. Mora E, Fonesca GM, Navarro P, Castano A, Lucena J (2017) Fatal dog attacks in Spain under a breed-specific legislation: A ten year retrospective study. J of Vet Behav, vol 25, pp 76-84.
23. RSPCA report “Breed specific legislation: A dog’s dinner”. https://www.rspca.org.uk/webContent/staticImages/Downloads/BSL_Report.pdf. Accessed 5 June 2018.
24. Taylor KD, Mills DS (2007) The effect of the kennel environment on canine welfare: a critical review of experimental studies. Animal Welfare, vol 16, pp 435-447.